A surprise witness appeared before the January 6 Committee yesterday, June 28, to detail a series of events that the legacy media believe are the smoking gun ending former President Donald Trump's political career. But was the testimony as damning as the headlines declare?
Cassidy Hutchinson, a former senior adviser to Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, on Tuesday made a number of bombshell statements to the House select committee. She said she'd been told by a colleague that Trump tried to seize the wheel of his chauffeured vehicle as his motorcade drove to the White House from the Ellipse on Jan. 6, after he was informed it was not safe for him to travel to the Capitol. According to Hutchinson, the president's goal was to steer the vehicle toward the congressional buildings and to join the events at that location. She further stated that "Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel," a Secret Service agent who she alleges tried to remove Trump's hands from the steering wheel.
Ms. Hutchinson's testimony was often and incorrectly relayed as a first-person account in media stories about the day's hearing. Hutchinson repeatedly testified like someone giving eyewitness testimony rather than relaying a story about events experienced by another. She even grabbed her own arm as she described the scenario in the vehicle, as if enacting what she had seen. She was not relating a personal experience, however. It was not even hearsay, but double hearsay. Mr. Tony Ornato – the White House deputy chief of staff - was reportedly the one who relayed the story to Hutchinson about Trump trying to take the wheel and grabbing Mr. Engel.
Is it possible Hutchinson's statements did not describe the scene accurately? After the day's hearing concluded, multiple news outlets reported that the driver, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Ornato, would testify under oath that Trump never did what Hutchinson said. NBC News' Chief White House Correspondent Peter Alexander reported:
"A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel."
(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Differing Accounts?
Referring to a tweet put out by the president on January 6, Hutchinson said that Trump's social media attacks on Vice President Mike Pence were "unpatriotic" and "un-American," and that she felt "disgusted" by the former president's messages.
In response, Trump released a short statement on his Truth Social platform claiming the aide had asked to remain on his staff, and questioning why she would want to work with him at Mar-a-Lago if she were so disgusted. In part, he said:
"When she requested to go with certain others of the team to Florida having served a full term in office, I personally turned her request down. Why did she want to go with us if she felt we were so terrible?"
It is notable that in mid-January, Bloomberg reported that, according to its sources, Hutchinson was among those who may head to Florida with team Trump.
Handwriting On The Wall?
While discussing the public statements that the White House considered releasing on Jan. 6, Ms. Hutchinson was shown a handwritten note regarding a draft message. She said that she was the author of the note and confirmed, "that's my handwriting." However, casting doubt upon the veracity of her testimony is a claim that comes from another Trump administration co-worker.
After the hearing ended, a spokesperson for former White House lawyer Eric Herschmann reached out to ABC News, saying, "The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021." "All sources with direct knowledge and law enforcement have and will confirm that it was written by Mr. Herschmann," the spokesperson said.
If Hutchinson is proven untruthful in this one instance, what does it suggest about her other recollections?
No Back and Forth
Members of the Democrat-led committee may well be confident that the picture they are painting is a fair one. But with no opposing testimony, no cross-examination, and the one-sided selection of who can testify and on which topics, there will always be an aura of the kangaroo court around these proceedings. Should the committee members wish to make the hearings more respectable, they could always invite those with opposing views and statements to be involved. But the narrative might not survive such an intrusion.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
